Role in IT decision-making process:Align Business & IT GoalsCreate IT StrategyDetermine IT NeedsManage Vendor RelationshipsEvaluate/Specify Brands or VendorsOther RoleAuthorize PurchasesNot Involved

Work Phone:

Company:

Company Size:

Industry:

Street Address

City:

Zip/postal code

State/Province:

Country:

Occasionally, we send subscribers special offers from select partners. Would you like to receive these special partner offers via e-mail?YesNo

Your registration with Eweek will include the following free email newsletter(s):News & Views

By submitting your wireless number, you agree that eWEEK, its related properties, and vendor partners providing content you view may contact you using contact center technology. Your consent is not required to view content or use site features.

By clicking on the "Register" button below, I agree that I have carefully read the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy and I agree to be legally bound by all such terms.

WEBINAR:On-Demand

Google says it plans to let the U.S. government examine a miniscule snippet of its stockpile of indexed Web sites.

The company was ordered to do just that on March 17 by U.S. District Court Judge James Ware.

Ware has given Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., until April 3 to hand over a randomly generated selection of about 50,000 Web sites that could be included in its search results.

The government plans to use the sites as raw material to test Internet filters.

Google attorney Nicole Wong, writing for the Google blog, said the company plans to comply with Wares order. She didnt indicate exactly when Google would produce the list of Web sites.

In the March 17 decision, Ware did not grant the governments additional request for a random sampling of 5,000 of search terms that Google consumers entered.

The judge wrote in the 21-page order that he was persuaded by the governments decision to significantly reduce the amount of data it wanted from Google. At one point, the department had requested what amounted to billions of Web sites, and millions of search key words.

"The Courts concerns … have been mitigated by the reduced scope [of] the governments present request," Ware wrote.

The ruling serves to further sort out the balance between the duties of law enforcement and a search engines right to protect trade secrets and customer privacy, he wrote.

Wares decision and Googles decision to comply, some legal experts said, makes it easier for government entities to monitor Americas search habits. Privacy rights advocates are disturbed because of the personal details an Internet search session usually reveals.

/zimages/5/28571.gifGoogle CEO Eric Schmidt addressed the issue of surrendering search information to the government, among other topics, during a recent interview. Click here to read more.

Reaction to Wares decision is mixed. But a majority of those reached for comment said its a stepping stone for even larger and more far-reaching requests by the government and others for search engine customer data.

Judge Ware seems to have dodged that question for now. His ruling, he wrote, does not address "concerns articulated about the appropriateness of the governments use of courts subpoena power to gather and collect information about what individuals search the Internet for."

But some said they believe search engines may ultimately have to rewrite their privacy policies as a result.

Another question raised is how long Internet search engines can truly protect customers from "government snooping," said Andrew W. Klungness, an Internet and e-commerce law specialist at the law firm Bryan Cave, based in Los Angeles.

As for search consumers, the case has made clear that there is a permanent record of their online activity held by companies that may or may not have their best interests at heart, and some once-freewheeling searchers now plan to limit themselves.

"I wonder how many people might draw the analogy between the DOJs and the Chinese governments efforts to control, monitor or know what you are doing on the internet?" wrote an eWEEK.com reader, screen-named MPBishton. "Congress censured one of them. Will they censure the other?"

"These companies dont even care about their own privacy, why should they care about their users," wrote another eWEEK.com reader, screen-named Cbaap.

In his comments from the bench a few days ago, Justice Ware spoke of trying to fight this very perception that search terms are "all subject to government scrutiny."

Wares decision ends a few acrimonious months of litigation that helped expose a deep rift separating Google from the government and Googles competitors.

But the other three complied, stating that they could do so and still protect their customers privacy.

A furor erupted over whether the search engines had violated their users privacy after news broke of the requests. Aside from sparking a loud public debate, the issue also gave rise to a proposed law that seeks to solve the problem by forcing search engines to periodically erase some forms of customer data.

Editors Note: This story was updated to include more details from the ruling, and additional comment from Google.

/zimages/5/28571.gifCheck out eWEEK.coms for the latest news, views and analysis on enterprise search technology.

Advertiser Disclosure:
Some of the products that appear on this site are from companies from which QuinStreet receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site including, for example, the order in which they appear. QuinStreet does not include all companies or all types of products available in the marketplace.